This is why affirmative should remain in tact

The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner. In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

Why regardless? If the fact is that AIDS more likely affects heterosexuals than homosexuals then how can the opposite assetion not be controversial. Don't point to the sun and tell me it's the moon.

Well, you're right. If AIDS is more likely to affect heterosexuals than homosexuals, than Sowell is, at the very least, mistaken, and, at the very most, asserting something that is untrue to grind an ideological axe.

But I think the converse is true, that is, that AIDS is more likely to affect homosexuals than heterosexuals.

Without hard data, neither of us can prove the other is false, and will be reduced to appealing to popular belief in the factual status of our assertion. And judging by our arguments so far, we have very different asssessments on the status of that popular belief, which seems reasonable. But at least we're now talking facts and reasons, rather than sliming each other with ad hom attacks

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site? It just shows the text of what he wrote. Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass. And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut. Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.

This data shows that the rate of AIDS infections amongst the non-homosexuals has increased and the rate of AIDS infections amongst homosexuals has decreased.

Since non-homosexuals can get AIDS, Sowell is obviously mistaken.

As any reasonable person would infer, Media Matters has completely misconstrued what Sowell actually wrote. They switched his necessary condition and his sufficient condition, and attempted to attribute the mistaken reversal as something he originally stated.

Are you sure you belong at Harvard? I thought conditional reasoning was the prime focus of the LSAT. Or has your ideology blinded you to the proper reading of this article?

You did a terrible job of summarization to forcibly make Media Matters misconstrue the piece. That's not hard to do. Let me summarize your post.

1. I think I'm smart.2. I'm not.

Most obviously, MM does not claim that Sowell states that only homosexuals can get AIDS but that he suggests it. And he certainly does want readers to associate the two while hating both.

You and Lindbergh can jerk off all you want to his credentials but they have no bearing on his legitimacy as a social commentator and this piece is proof. It's a hateful piece that continues a shameful legacy of trying to tie AIDS to gayness while attacking aids education.

You seem obsessed about where I go to school but your energy would be much better worrying about what school would possibly accept you. Let me put this in no uncertain terms: Anyone at a top school would immediately recognize this piece for what it is. It doesn't matter what your political leanings are, it is entirely clear to any thinking person what Sowell is going for here and it's also clear that this is not a piece worth engaging with or debating. You and Lindbergh are in a lot of trouble if your ideological blinders have prevented you from seeing the forest for the trees. Law students, for all their shortcomings, at least can spot something as easy as this.

I guess you don't really know what a good student looks like so you're confused. Get used to feeling this way, because you're going to be missing a lot of things in law school.

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

So would heterosexuality be a deathstyle then? Would AIDS education still be about homosexual activists CONVERTING OUR CHILDREN!!!! Christ almighty, look at what you're defending.

Now, I've given you three sources (A Christian group, a university hospital, and the US Health and Human Services Dept.) If you deny the facts here, you've lost all credibility.

You are more likely to catch AIDS if you have unprotected sex - not if you're gay. Sowell perpetuates myths with regards to Gays and AIDS. For me, without any retraction, I don't trust his "expertise" in other matters. He's a non-pragmatic idealist.

Even if most new HIV cases come from heterosexual sex, that doesn't mean you are more likely to contract it if you are a straight than gay. The straight population is larger than the gay one.

Let's say there are 1050 people in a studied population, and 50 of those people are gay. Let's also say that 100 people from the group of 1050 have recently contracted AIDS, and of those 100, 90 were infected from heterosexual sex, 10 from homosexual sex.

In this scenario, 90% of the new cases of AIDS cases were due to heterosexual sex. Yet the likelihood of a gay person being infected, which is 20% (10/50), is much higher than the likelihood of a straight person being infected, which is 9% (90/1000).

Regardless of this point, or how one feels about gays or AIDS, a reasonable person would agree that Media Matters blatantly misrepresented Sowell's statements.

If you have to make up a statistical scenario to disprove the statistics I gave from credible sources, you have truly lost your way.

And I'm a reasonable person, and I don't believe MM misrepresented Sowell's statements. He implied exactly what he wanted the flock to believe.

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

Attack site? It just shows the text of what he wrote. Nice no-denial evasion move, jackass. And I'm a moderate, you're just a nut. Anyone to the right of Atilla the Hun knows that Sowell is a joke.

This data shows that the rate of AIDS infections amongst the non-homosexuals has increased and the rate of AIDS infections amongst homosexuals has decreased.

Since non-homosexuals can get AIDS, Sowell is obviously mistaken.

As any reasonable person would infer, Media Matters has completely misconstrued what Sowell actually wrote. They switched his necessary condition and his sufficient condition, and attempted to attribute the mistaken reversal as something he originally stated.

Are you sure you belong at Harvard? I thought conditional reasoning was the prime focus of the LSAT. Or has your ideology blinded you to the proper reading of this article?

You did a terrible job of summarization to forcibly make Media Matters misconstrue the piece. That's not hard to do. Let me summarize your post.

1. I think I'm smart.2. I'm not.

Most obviously, MM does not claim that Sowell states that only homosexuals can get AIDS but that he suggests it. And he certainly does want readers to associate the two while hating both.

You and Lindbergh can jerk off all you want to his credentials but they have no bearing on his legitimacy as a social commentator and this piece is proof. It's a hateful piece that continues a shameful legacy of trying to tie AIDS to gayness while attacking aids education.

You seem obsessed about where I go to school but your energy would be much better worrying about what school would possibly accept you. Let me put this in no uncertain terms: Anyone at a top school would immediately recognize this piece for what it is. It doesn't matter what your political leanings, it is entirely clear to any thinking person what Sowell is going for here and it's also clear that this is not a piece worth engaging with or debating. You and Lindbergh are in a lot of trouble if your ideological blinders have prevented you from seeing the forest for the trees. Law students, for all their shortcomings, at least can spot something as easy as this.

I guess you don't really know what a good student looks like so you're confused. Get used to feeling this way, because you're going to be missing a lot of things in law school.

MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems. MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article. Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc. Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people. He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people). He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS. Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality. This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.* He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling. The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible. He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals. If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead. The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting. Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.

*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.

MM's attack on Sowell's argument is based on alleging that he asserted that only homosexuals get AIDS, an assertion that is easily disproven. However, there is nothing in the article that even suggests that AIDS is *exclusively* a homosexual disease. The author doesn't mention heterosexuals getting it, but that lack of mention does not mean he thinks that only gays get the disease (FWIW, such a statement would be out of place given the points he was trying to make). You're reading your own biases favoring gays, and dislike of the author's political stance, into the interpretation of the article. This is very intellectually dishonest, but something that I've expected from you.

I'm also not sure how you know the attitude Sowell had while writing this piece. If your basing this assertion on your telephathic skills, which are so unreliable as to suggest to you that I'm caucasian ("a special little snowflake"), you might want to get your head examined. Since you already know a lobotomist, I don't think that would require you to exert too much effort.

Giuliani wrote in his book that people whose ability to convinced lied solely in their credentials and ability to bluster, rather than their provision of real arguments, often become further enraged if you pointed out the senselessness of what they were saying and insulted their credentialing institution. Since you fit the bill, and I want to piss you off, I thought I might try that tactic.

- Your special little snowflake

You have real reading comprehension problems. MM writes that Sowell suggests "that AIDS exclusively afflicts homosexuals," which is certainly something a reasonable person could get out of the article. Sowell links the two and never hedges from his point by pointing out that the majority of AIDS cases involve two heterosexual people, etc. Sowell claims that homosexual activists have gotten money for AIDS even though other diseases kill more people. He's specifically implying that gay people care about AIDS because it kills them (and other diseases kill other people). He claims that homosexuality is a deathstyle in the era of AIDS. Since 9 times as many straight people have AIDS, I wonder what he thinks about heterosexuality. This point alone is appalling, but it does go to MM's position.* He then does his best Ann Coulter impression (he's not that good) and goes to attack "so-called 'AIDS education'" which is just appalling. The use of quotes and the perjorative so-called, followed by the claim that these programs promote homosexuality is incredible. He's making it very clear in that line that AIDS is something for homosexuals. If you want to continue to defend the piece, go ahead. The suggestion is there and more importantly, the piece is disgusting. Quote Guiliani all you want, but you're the one clinging to a bigot because you like something else he had to say.

*If I pulled rape statistics regarding Chinese-Americans and then referred to it as a Rapenicity, I don't think you'd be too happy.